mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 14:19:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
015d3d0a7c
## Thinking Path - Remote sandboxes cost money while they exist, so every sandbox Paperclip keeps must have an owner and an end. - Two lease policies keep a sandbox after its run. `reuse_by_environment` keeps a warm sandbox for the next turn. `retain_on_failure` keeps a failed run's sandbox, stopped, as a workspace-restore source. - Environment deletion is the last chance to end both: with the operator's consent it destroys the environment's kept sandboxes, otherwise it refuses. - It only looked at `reuse_by_environment`. A `retain_on_failure` sandbox neither blocked the delete nor got destroyed, so it was orphaned the moment its environment was deleted. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20048 **What happened?** In Daytona warm wave w-20261108T170423-s9501, the harness deleted the environment after grading. Three stopped sandboxes (4e20c8b3, abf0980b, 5e49c561) remained afterwards and had to be deleted by hand through the Daytona API. All three belonged to `retain_on_failure` leases: failed runs' sandboxes kept as workspace-restore sources. **This leaks on master today, with per-turn sandboxes too.** The four leases in that wave carried `workspaceRestoreRecovery` from `legacy-workspace-restore-recovery.ts` (no `nativeSourceRetention` marker). That writer turns any failed run's lease with a workspace-restore failure into a `retain_on_failure` restore source, whether the environment is warm or per-turn. Every such sandbox has been surviving environment deletion and costing money until deleted by hand. **Steps to reproduce** 1. A run in a sandbox environment fails, and its lease is released as a `retain_on_failure` restore source (sandbox stopped, not destroyed). 2. Delete the environment with `destroyReusableSandboxLeases=true`. 3. The delete succeeds; the restore-source sandbox is never destroyed and has no lease or environment left to find it by. **Expected behavior** The delete blast radius counts kept restore-source sandboxes like reusable ones. Without consent, the delete is refused; with consent, they are destroyed through the same claimed teardown before the environment row is removed. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/environments.ts`: `getDeleteBlastRadius` counts leases with policy `reuse_by_environment` **or `retain_on_failure`** (status `active`, `released`, `retained` or `failed`) as kept-sandbox holders. The blocked reason is still `reusable_sandbox_lease`. - `server/src/services/environment-runtime.ts`: `destroyReusableSandboxLeasesForEnvironment` selects both policies. It claims through `destroyClaimedSandboxLease` with `anyLeasePolicy` plus a scope condition limited to those two policies, keeping its existing guards: live-run skip, pending export, legacy shutdown protection, and the claim compare-and-swap. - `server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts`: a released `retain_on_failure` lease on a failed run now blocks the delete and is destroyed by the consented teardown (`expired`, `environment_deleted`). This fails on master. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts`: 347/347 pass. - The new test fails on master: the blast radius reports no kept sandbox. ## Risks - **A delete now refused that used to succeed.** An environment holding restore-source sandboxes is refused until the operator consents to destroying them. That is the intended behaviour; it was silently leaking them before. - **Losing restore files.** The consented delete destroys restore sources, which is what the operator agreed to by deleting the environment. Leases with a pending export or legacy shutdown protection are still skipped and keep blocking. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`, Anthropic), 1M context window, tool use and code execution, via Claude Code. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>